I recently read the Hannibal Lecter novels. Each is worse than the last, and that goes for Silence of the Lambs, which gets much more praise than it deserves. Don't get me wrong, I like it a lot, and I even like Hannibal, but Red Dragon is much better than both of them. The interesting part of the whole series is getting into the minds of these characters, and none of the sequels do that as well as Red Dragon. Dolarhyde is by far the most interesting character in the series, including Lecter, and Graham is a far more interesting character than Starling. Graham's gimmick is that he has the mind of a serial killer but tries to use it for good, despite it being dangerous for him both physically and psychologically. Starling's gimmick is that she's a young girl, and the novel goes out of its way to reassure you that she is never in any danger anyway. Red Dragon has a cool thing where almost half the novel is from the killer's point of view, and his story is mirrored with Graham's. Silence of the Lambs, by contrast, feels like its killer is just a throwaway MacGuffin. Buffalo Bill is a very memorable character thanks to an excellent performance in the film adaptation, but there really isn't that much to him, especially compared to Dolarhyde.
Lecter is a compelling character in all the novels, even without Hopkins' famous portrayal, but obviously making him so important in the third one was not the most artistic move. And I don't think Harris thought it was either. But they demanded a sequel from him, and they surely demanded more Lecter, so he did the best with what was demanded of him, and it still ends up being a good novel. It actually makes Starling a much more interesting character, as she now actually has some inner conflict, and her arc is more than just trying to prove herself against a society that is vaguely implied to be sexist despite her boss being super nice and doing everything he can to help her (especially compared to how he treated Graham. And yes, you can consider this to be character development for Crawford, but it still deals a blow to the idea that Starling is fighting sexism, which is basically the closest thing she has to a central conflict in the story). But in Hannibal, Starling is actually pulled in multiple directions and thus feels like an actual character with some depth and intrigue, instead of just a designated protagonist that is purely good and right. She still isn't as interesting as Graham, but it's something. And I'll give Harris credit for doing an ending that pissed off the retards that liked Silence of the Lambs for the wrong reasons (feminism), including Jodie Foster. He tried to add at least a bit of artistry to what was obviously a work for hire, even if the movie version that the novel was clearly written to support went and changed (ruined) it anyway. Without giving it away, I can't imagine how anyone could read the novel and then watch the movie and not see that the movie destroys all the themes and character arcs from the whole thing. And it's not like it wasn't already still feminist in the novel. But it's never enough for them, because it tried to be feminist while still actually making the female protagonist have some depth, and we can't have that, because depth implies she isn't perfect.
Also, Mason Verger is a far more interesting character than Buffalo Bill. Neither of them are nuanced characters that are so compelling they almost feel like the protagonist, like Dolarhyde does, but if you're gonna have black and white villains, then fine, go with Mason Verger's cartoonish supervillainy. And yes, it was clearly only done so they could make Lecter seem like less of a villain by contrast, but I'll take it. This is also the novel where Hannibal basically starts becoming Wolverine, so whatever. The premise of seriousness is out the window, but it's an entertaining book. Previously Lecter was very smart and observant, and the closest he gets to a superpower is a very fine sense of smell (even though he insists he can't smell Starling's cunt, so evidently Multiple Miggs had a better version of that superpower), but even that feels like it's just a guy who is very bored and locked away for a long time finding it very easy to notice the few minute changes to his environment. Here we're suddenly told he has an extra finger, just to make him different, but also his senses now seemingly work well enough that he can identify people by smell from the other side of a large outdoor crowd. Whatever. Fuck it. It's not the same appeal the first two novels had, but it's still fun.
Obviously Hannibal Rising is shit. Thomas Harris was forced to write it because the movie studio said they'd do it with or without him. Again, he did his best to salvage a bad idea. The series was already cartoony by this point, so now Hannibal is basically a ninja, and the tragic backstory alluded to in the previous one is fleshed out to the degree that it now comes across as cliche and ridiculous, but if you're gonna do a prequel about his childhood, this is what the previous novel set up. Well, not the ninja part, but whatever. I've read worse novels. This isn't painful to read or anything. It's just really dumb. But if you've read the other three and you don't mind an incredibly mindless revenge story, then here you go.
While I'm here being autistic, I'll go on a little more about the movies. Manhunter is the first adaptation of Red Dragon, and I've heard people say it's unfairly overlooked because of its lack of Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. And to be clear, it is a good movie, and Brian Cox's portrayal of Lector (for some reason with an alternate spelling) is perhaps more faithful to the novel. Part of being more faithful is that it's more minor, but Cox does a good job, as does everyone else in the movie. It's directed by Michael Mann, of Miami Vice, and his visual style is very interesting in anything. It works well here as well. Where I feel the movie suffers is that in trying to condense things, most of Dolarhyde's material is cut or rushed through, and he never really gets the chance to be as compelling as he is in the novel or the later adaptation. The 2002 version of Red Dragon is by Brett Ratner, and he isn't exactly known for psychological thrillers, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Ratner actually did it better than Michael Mann here. But a large part of that is just because he managed to keep more of Dolarhyde's story. Visually he doesn't hold a candle to Mann, but I never needed Red Dragon to look like Miami Vice, even if I do like how Manhunter looks. Of course Ratner's Red Dragon has a bunch of additional Lecter stuff, with Anthony Hopkins, to capitalize on Silence of the Lambs, but that isn't why I like this version better. I do like Hopkins' scenes, even the ones that are original to the movie. It is a great performance. But the story doesn't need them, and Cox does just fine. It's Ralph Fiennes' Dolarhyde that makes the film better. He has more to work with, since he has more screentime, but also the character is both written and portrayed with much more humanity, much more accurately to the novel. William Petersen and Ed Norton both do a good job as Graham, but Petersen might do a better job at showing that Graham is actually psychologically suffering as he tries to put himself in the mind of a killer, while Norton just sort of portrays it as a superpower that an otherwise plain protagonist has. So I guess Petersen does a better job portraying the protagonist, and Mann has a better director's eye, but these things aren't enough to tip the scales in Manhunter's favor for me.